FERGUS, GALWWAY AND THE SCOTS
Richard D. Oram
From the early twelfth century until 1234, the country lying west of the
Nith and south of the watershed of the western Southern Uplands lay under
the governance of one family: the lords of Galloway of the House of Fergus.
As a political unit, the Iordship was to be one of the longest-lived of the
subdivisions of medieval Scotland, surviving as a distinct entity until 1455
when, with other forfeited Douglas lands, it was absorbed into the
properties of the crown. Down to 1234, its rulers commanded positions
of power and influence in both Scotland and England, and intervened
actively in the affairs of the kingdom of Man and the Isles. The last of
the male line, Alan, had a reputation as a warrior which reached as far
as the Norwegian court. Despite these facts, however, little is known of
the circumstances whereby this vast agglomeration of territory was fused
into a cohesive political entity; even less is known about the origins and
ancestry of the founder of the ruling dynasty. It is the aim of this paper
to examine the evidence for the formation of the lordship, and to assess
the part played in that process by members of the Canmore dynasty.
Despite arguments advanced in favour of Earl Malcolm and Suibne Mac
Cinaedh, 1 there is no evidence for any independent power in the southwest before the emergence in the 1130s of Fergus of Galloway. The ancestry
of this man, and the source of his powers in the lordship have, since the
nineteenth century, been the subjects of much scholarly conjecture. In view
of the evidence for military service being performed by Galwegians in the
armies of Malcolm Canmore in the later eleventh century, 2 it was regarded
as clear that the south-west had been subject to Scottish overlordship,
probably derived from Scottish acquisition of the lands and rights of the
former rulers of Strathclyde. As a result, Fergus came to be viewed either
as an upstart who had carved a position for himself in a region where royal
power was weak, or as a protege of the Scots, established in Galloway as
a vassal of the crown. 3 To writers such as M'Kerlie, he was no more than
a foreign governor, a non-Galwegian imposed by an unprincipled king upon
a people left leaderless by the death of its rulers at the battle of the
Standard. 4 His lack of a patronymic fuelled this view, implying that there
may be some truth in the belief that he was a mere parvenu, the first of
his line.
More elaborate traditions developed out of these initial observations.
Fergus has come to be depicted as a boyhood friend of the future David
I, sharing with him an upbringing at the court of Henry I of England.
According to Huyshe, it was there that he met and fell in love with his
future bride, Henry's illegitimate daughter, Elizabeth. 5 As a close friend
and confidant of David, and son-in-law of the English king, Fergus was
destined for greatness. This supposed upbringing at the Anglo-Norman
117
GALLOWAY
in the
Middle Ages
....__ _ _ _ __.. 20 Miles
00
..
Fig.8.1 Galloway in the Middle Ages.
• Main Fortresses or Towns
• ••• •. Boundary of the Lordship
o 0 0 0 0 W'n Boundary, Desnes loan
court is a mere echo of M'Kerlie's belief in Fergus's non-Galwegian origins.
There is, however, little about Fergus to suggest an Anglo-Norman background. Indeed, his association with the conservative earls in the 1159-60
rebellion against Malcolm IV 6 may indicate a marked antipathy towards
the new social and cultural trends being introduced by the Canmore kings.
Moreover, the supposed childhood $pent at the English court appears to
be pure fabrication, invented by nineteen-century writers who were seeking
to find suitable circumstances for Fergus to have met his future bride. That
such a marriage took place is now generally accepted, 7 but it is unlikely
to have been the love-match proposed by Huyshe. Instead, it was probably
a politically-motivated union, a simple act of English foreign policy
designed to draw a powerful regional lord into the orbit of the English
crown. This marriage was to have serious political repercussions later in
the twelfth century.
The proposal that Fergus was a 'creation' of David I may have a more
substantial basis in fact, and does not rely upon the spurious claims of
childhood friendship to give it foundation. Several factors appear to
combine to support the contention that Fergus was installed in his lordship
by the king of Scots, but there are still serious weaknesses within this thesis.
The main arguments focus on the question of his antecedents. Certain
aspects of the landed properties pertaining to the lordship seem to indicate
that Fergus had predecessors in Galloway, but whether these men were
ancestors or not is an altogether different matter. The lack of any
patronymic, where he appears it is simply as 'Fergus of Galloway', 8 and
the manner in which the pedigrees of his successors are rehearsed in their
charters back to Fergus and no further, 9 have been seized upon as proof
that he was an upstart. If, though, he was not of Galwegian stock, what
were his antecedents and why was he to become established in Galloway?
At this point, some students of Galwegian history would brandish the
'evidence' of the Roman de Fergus, 10 and seek to identify the hero of the
romantic poem with the historical lord of Galloway. The hero of the poem
is described as the youngest son of a certain Somerled, whom the poet
depicts as a boorish peasant, elevated through a good marriage to a position
of wealth and higher social status. Somerled's name has been seized upon
subsequently as direct evidence for a link between the dynasties of Galloway
and Argyll, 11 with several members of the latter being advanced as
Fergus's progenitor. Various theories have been put forward to explain how
a member of the Argyll dynasty could have gained control of Galloway. 12
There are serious chronological problems with most of the proposals
made upon the basis of the romance, most of these stemming from the
difficulty of finding a Somerled of the right generation to be the father
of Fergus. The almost frenzied efforts of partisans of the Fergus-Somerled
thesis to find a viable alternative when valid objections are raised about
their previous submissions have largely discredited the value of the poem
119
as a source. There is, moreover, no general consensus about the circumstances of the composition. 13 It has been interpreted by literary historians
as either a panegyric composed for Alan of Galloway, a glorification of
the founder of his dynasty, written at the time of his marriage to a niece
of the Scottish king, 14 or as a work of propaganda produced later in the
thirteenth century for Devorgilla Balliol in support of her ambitions for
her family. 15 In both cases, the bad light in which Somerled is portrayed,
and the clear references to his inferior background, can have been of little
credit to the supposed patron of the work. The Devorgilla thesis, where
the romance is supposedly a work designed to cast lustre on her family,
and aid them in their aspirations to the Scottish throne, is particularly
untenable. Firstly, she would have had to have possessed clairvoyant abilities
to know that her youngest son was to be a contender for the throne in
1290-1. Secondly, advertising that your family was descended from peasant
stock would surely have been suicidal in this context. With success
dependent upon the support of the aristocracy, it would have been a serious
blunder to focus attention on the lowly origins of your dynasty, irrespective
of its status by that date.
There are further objections which cast serious doubts upon the genealogical value of the romance, and call into question the whole issue of its
connection with the Galloway dynasty. Most notable amongst these is the
question of the specific aim of the author of the work. If, as has been
proposed by Owen, 16 the poet was composing a near parody of the
conventional romance genre, as represented by the work of Chretien of
Troyes, what value should be attached to names and locations used in his
poem? Many obscure allusions, lost to us, may have been instantly
recognisable to connoissieurs of the fashionable romances of the thirteenth
century. It should be noted, moreover, that the poet, a Picard clerk named
Guillaume, possessed only a very sketchy knowledge of the geography of
western Britain, and more particularly of Gailoway and the Isles. 17 This
deficiency is difficult to explain if Guillaume is to be identified with Alan
of Galloway's clerk, William, prior of St Mary's lsle. 18 Similar objections
can be raised regarding the composer's supposed attachment to Devorgilla's
household. In view of these internal factors, therefore, the Roman de Fergus
cannot be accepted as an authoritative source concerned with the origins
of the historical Fergus.
One element of the numerous hypotheses surrounding the Roman which
was apparently supported by independent tradition is that which proposes
some link between the dynasties of Argyll and Galloway. It should be
stressed that no factual basis for this argument was ever established, but
a number of circumstantial factors appeared to combine to make it a
proposition worthy of consideration. The origins of this tradition appear
to stem from the genealogical claims advanced for the MacDowells, 19 a
family prominent in Galwegian politics from the late thirteenth century
120
onwards. They, on no clear authority other than the dubious grounds of
heraldry, have been represented as descendants of some unknown scion
of the main Galloway dynasty. Past observers have accepted this supposed
link without comment, although the MacDowells themselves appear never
to have voiced claims to such illustrious ancestry. The family's rise to
prominence after 1296 stemmed from their exploitation of the power
vacuum in the Iordship following the deposition of John Balliol, not from
any kinship association with the former ruling house. Such objections were
generally overlooked, attention instead focusing upon the patronymic
MacDowell (and its variants MacDowall and MacDouall) and its clear
etymological relationship with MacDougal. Despite obvious chronological
impossibility, this developed into a theory that the MacDowells (and, by
extension, the main branch of the Galloway dynasty), sprang from the
senior line of the descendants of Somerled. While it is by no means
impossible that the MacDowells did share some kindred link with the lords
of Lorne, the fact that Fergus was a contemporary of the father of the
eponymous Dugald of the MacDougals renders it definite that the Galloway
dynasty did not.
Although a direct line of descent from the main branch of the Argyll
dynasty must be ruled out, the activities of Fergus and his thirteenth-century
successors in Man and the Isles indicate some long-term and deep-seated
interest in these areas. The alliance which Fergus forged with the Manx
dynasty, through the marriage of his daughter, Affreca, to Olaf
Godredsson, 20 forms the most obvious source for this long-lived
involvement, but the roots may lie deeper. Other speakers at the Conference
pointed to the reported activities of Magnus Barelegs in the Solway region
in the late eleventh century. When taken in conjunction with the evidence
for the limited settlement of Scandinavian colonists in the southern
Machars and the country around the Dee estuary, it is perhaps possible
that there was a movement of settlers into Galloway from Man, or from
parts of the Hebrides under Manx influence. No-one has suggested that
this settlement represented a conquest, but the material evidence from the
excavations at Whithorn suggests that the cultural and economic
implications were considerable. 21 Significantly, the areas of densest
Scandinavian settlement coincide with the two chief foci of Iordship power
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, based on Cruggleton and
Kirkcudbright. ls it possible that an initially economic dominance of
Galloway by settlers from Man or the Norse-Celtic colonies of the Hebrides
was transformed into political mastery as the colonists became more
entrenched in Galwegian society? The development of the European
colonial empires in the Far East in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
suggest that it is.
Of the various origins proposed for Fergus, descent from a Norse-Celtic
family, probably intermarried with native Galwegian elements, forms the
121
most viable of the options at our disposal. 22 The evidence is still tenuous,
but does not rely upon the complicated genealogies which enmesh most
of the alternatives. Certainly, the traditional outlook of the Galwegians,
away from Scotland towards the powers of the Irish Sea and Hebrides,
suggests that it was from those areas that Fergus's predecessors were drawn.
The disposition of the family estates, concentrated predominantly in the
lower Dee valley and the coastal region around Whitham, 23 associates
him closely with the areas of principal Scandinavian settlement along the
north shore of the Salway. Such general observations form only a skeletal
framework, but they are as specific as the surviving sources will allow. To
attempt to add flesh to these bare bones would be only to indulge in unwarranted conjecture.
The question of Fergus's antecedents settles only in part the issue of
whether he was a protege of the Scottish crown installed in Galloway as
a governor, or a native ruler exercising his powers independently of the
king. That he was probably of south-western stock does not rule out the
possibility that he had been established in authority over his compatriots
by the Scots, although such an action is not characteristic of what is known
of David I's policies regarding the introduction of royal vassals into areas
where royal influence was thinly stretched. In any case, it is unclear to what
extent David possessed the ability to influence the affairs of Galloway,
whether he was in fact capable of installing one of his own creatures into
a position of power in a region which lay on the periphery of his sphere
of authority. The question of the degree and extent of David'~ power prior
to his accession to the throne in 1124 has never been addressed satisfactorily,
despite its obvious implications regarding the formation of the pattern of
secular lordship in the south-west.
From 1107 until 1124, David had exercised rule over a substantial portion
of southern Scotland (excluding Lothian), which had been bequeathed to
him by his elder brother, King Edgar. During this phase of his career, he
is most commonly referred to as 'Earl David', 24 a title held in recognition
of his possession of the Midlands earldoms of the St Liz family, but on
occasion he is described as 'prince of Cumbria' (or some variant of that
formula), 25 a title specifically associated with his domain in southern
Scotland. The full extent of this 'principality' is still a matter of debate,
but there is general consensus regarding the core of its territory. David's
title associates him clearly with the Brythonic peoples of the central
Southern Uplands, Clydesdale, Tweeddale and the valleys around the head
of the Salway. The bulk of this territory fell beneath the episcopal authority
of the bishops of Glasgow, and it is clear from many of David's later acts
that there was a marked correspondence between the sphere of jurisdiction
of the prince and that of the bishops. The latter are acknowledged as the
successors of the 'tribal' bishops of Strathclyde, 26 whose see corresponded
122
in territorial terms with the lands controlled by the kings of Strathclyde,
expanding and contracting with the fortunes of the kingdom.
Recognition of the correspondence between David's territories and the
lands of the see of Glasgow raised awkward questions of early students
of Galwegian history. The most problematical of these concerned the inclusion of the easternmost subdivision of the lordship, Desnes loan, within
the diocese of Glasgow rather than of Galloway. Interpretations of this
arrangement varied greatly, but two main schools dominated. One saw this
ecclesiastical division as the residual trace of a once wider jurisdiction,
with all of Galloway formerly falling beneath the bishops of Glasgow, but
a partition had been effected on the revival of the Galwegian see in the
1120s. 27 The second viewed it as a forcible partition, probably dating from
Malcolm IV's invasion of Galloway in 1160, intended to improve the royal
supervision of the conquered lordship. 28 The value of such a division,
however, is not obvious, as Desnes loan remained firmly within the sphere
of the lords of Galloway. Of these two interpretations, the former carried
more weight, as it seemed logical to propose that in the absence of a bishop
at Whithorn the Galwegians would naturally have looked to the nearest
convenient bishop for provision of certain services, such as consecration,
reconciliation and provision of chrism. This argument, however, overlooked
the traditional ties with the Northumbrian Church. Indeed, the weight of
the evidence concerning the revival of the Galwegian see points towards
York as the main source of initiative. 29 Whatever the scenario for the
creation of this division, however, it was recognised that implicit within
inclusion in the see of Glasgow was subjection to the overlordship of the
ruler of Strathclyde. From 1107 that meant overlordship by Prince David.
Further evidence for the submission of Galloway to the rulers of
Strathclyde appears to lie in David's exercise of rights to fiscal levies from
south-western districts of his domain. The earliest references are to tithes
of his cain of certain foodstuffs from four districts, Carrick, Kyle,
Cunninghame and Strathclyde, 30 which correspond approximately with
the later sheriffdoms of Ayr and Renfrew. Malcolm IV's great charter to
Kelso Abbey appears to allude to these districts when it refers to 'that part
of Galloway' held by King David. 31 This implies clearly that part of
Galloway was not held by him. The automatic reaction would be to claim
that the lordship was the portion which lay outwith his control, yet certain
factors would seem to indicate otherwise. The principal objection from
Fergus's lifetime is his apparent provision of forinsec service in the armies
fighting in northern England down to 1138. This provision of military levies
appears as early as the reign of Malcolm III, who used Galwegians in
Northumberland in the 1080s and 1090s. 32 In no instance, however, is it
made clear on what basis troops were provided, and that it was through
forinsec service is simply an assumption based on the belief in Galwegian
subjection to Scottish overlordship. It is generally overlooked that in the
123
campaign of 1137-8 Fergus had a personal interest at stake, in that he was
fighting at least nominally in support of Matilda, half-sister to his wife.
Only in William the Lion's campaign of 1174, which followed the conquest
of the lordship, can provision of military service be seen as a service
obligation to the crown. On what basis, then, were troops provided in earlier
periods?
Throughout the Middle Ages, Galloway was seen as a reservoir of military
man-power, providing contingents to Scottish and English armies and
establishing its rulers as power-brokers in the political manoeuverings of
their day. This position is demonstrated most clearly in the lifetime of Alan
of Galloway in the early thirteenth century. He provided major forces to
the armies of both Alexander II of Scotland and John of England, as well
as conducting his own military ventures in Ulster, Man and the southern
Hebrides. 33 Service obligations appear to have been of little importance
to Alan, and it is clear from his dealings with King John and Reginald
of Man that his assistance did not come without a price. 34 With resources
of good quality man-power and a fleet at his disposal, Alan commanded
a valuable commodity much in demand by neighbouring rulers. It would
not be stretching the evidence too thinly to suggest that Galloway was an
early source of gallowglasses, major contingents of essentially mercenary
troops fighting under foreign banners. 35 It could be argued, therefore, that
the Galwegians serving in the eleventh- and twelfth-century Scottish armies
were present on occasion as hired troops, not as the product of a military
levy.
Counter to this proposal, some scholars would point to the direct
evidence for payment of fiscal renders by the lords of Galloway to the Scots,
referred to explicitly in two twelfth-century sources. The earlier of these
is a charter of Uhtred, granting land in Desnes loan to Richard, son of
Troite, datable to the late 1160s or early 1170s. 36 It states clearly that
Uhtred was paying cain to the crown. The second source records a
judgement made by Roland in the 1180s in a court at Lanark, which confirmed the royal right to cain from Galloway. 37 Both documents are of
vital importance, but their significance has been consistently misinterpreted.
In Uhtred's charter it is made clear that the cain was being levied only
on Desnes loan and its subdivision of Cro, not Galloway in general. This,
it should be remembered, was also the district which fell beneath the
jurisdiction of the see of Glasgow. Here, then, would appear to be direct
proof for the subjection of Galloway to spiritual and temporal dominance
by the rulers of Strathclyde and their Scottish successors. There is, however,
sufficient independent evidence to suggest that Desnes loan was something
of an anomaly. In other sources it is treated as a distinct unit with clear
boundaries, whilst the remainder of the lordship appears simply as an
amorphous whole until the reorganisation of the administrative pattern
after 1234. In addition to this, Uhtred seemed to indulge in an almost
124
prodigal alienation of lands and privileges within Desnes loan, 38 making
no such inroads on his inheritance elsewhere in the lordship. His grants
were such that his successors possessed little demesne in this region. This
attitude towards Desnes loan begs an explanation.
Analysis of the pattern of lordship estates shows an overwhelming
concentration of lands in the Ken-Dee Valley and the Machars peninsula.
Blanks in this distribution can be explained by the nature of the topography,
with most such areas corresponding with expanses of upland or moor.
Desnes loan, however, was a fertile and apparently populous district, but
contained few manors held personally by the lords. The distribution of
such estates suggests that the bulk of the lordship inheritance lay in
Galloway west of the Urr, with particular foci at Kirkcudbright and
Cruggleton. Whilst estates elsewhere in the lordship passed in and out of
the direct possession of the lords and their successors, the grouping around
these two foci remained in the hands of the senior line. 39 The clear
implication is that these represented the heartland, the capiti of the two
main portions of Galloway east and west of the Cree. The regular granting
away of other estates, especially in Desnes loan, suggests that they were
of secondary importance, perhaps reflecting a distinction between inherited
and acquired land. That Desnes loan as a whole is treated in this manner
suggests that it may have been a late acquisition, perhaps only added to
the lordship in the time of Uhtred. The general lack of Galwegian charters
from before 1160 makes this difficult to confirm, but certain features of
the later documentation and some characteristics in the archaeological
record indicate strongly that this must be the case.
In his paper, Derek Craig indicated the sharp dichotomy in sculptural
remains within Galloway. 40 Various stylistic schools are known from the
region west of the Urr, with major groupings corresponding approximately
to the ecclesiastical divisions of the medieval diocese. Desnes loan, however,
has produced no such monumental sculpture, which suggests a wholly
different cultural tradition. It is probable, therefore, that the lands east of
the Urr fell under an alternative spiritual and temporal influence in the
period when the sculptures were being produced in the tenth and eleventh
centuries. The most viable agency is Strathclyde, whose political power
expanded southwards into Annandale, Nithsdale and the Carlisle region
as Northumbria disintegrated. It was probably at the time of this expansion
that Desnes loan was drawn into the sphere of the bishops of Glasgow.
Scottish inheritance of the Strathclyde kingdom after 1018 is unlikely to
have seen any diminution of its territories and, down to 1093, Malcolm
III was to take an active interest in the south-western portion of his domain,
attempting to consolidate his grip on Carlisle. It is unlikely that Malcolm
would have jeopardised his position in this region by allowing Desnes loan
to slip from his grasp, let alone permit it to fall under Galwegian rule. It
125
is only after Malcolm IV's loss of Carlisle in 1157 that there is any
suggestion that this region formed an integral part of the lordship.
Evidence for control of Desnes loan by the Galloway dynasty does not
appear in concrete form until after c.I I65. The earliest material lies in a
group of Uhtred's charters, none of which predates the beginning of the
reign of William the Lion. Significantly, Uhtred's possession of Desnes
loan coincides with the disappearance of Radulf, son of Dunegal, lord
of lower Nithsdale, and the apparent extinction of his line. 41 There is
reason to believe that royal interest in Dumfries, Radulf's probable caput,
dates from the ll60s, 42 over twenty years earlier than the foundation of
the burgh, and it would appear that the stronghold there may have been
viewed as a replacement for Carlisle. As Reid pointed out, Desnes loan
goes naturally with Dumfries, forming both a buffer and a commercial
hinterland. 43 It is reasonable to assume that Radulf had controlled that
district, but that on his death a carve-up of his domain had occurred. The
crown seized Dumfries and the lands east of the Nith, while the remainder
west of the river was given to Uhtred. Coming probably little more than
five years after Malcolm IV's conquest of Galloway, this major gift of
territory might seem awkward to explain, but Scottish treatment of the
lordship suggests that Fergus had been the principal target and that the
king bore little grudge against his sons. Indeed, the evidence for family
discord in the Galloway dynasty in the I150s44 could support the argument
that Uhtred and Gilbert had either assisted in their father's downfall or
had done little to prevent it. Desnes loan, then, may have formed a reward
of sorts. A more likely explanation, however, is that William required
assistance in the establishment of a military and administrative framework
for his new acquisition in Nithsdale. Uhtred, as the nearest great lord, was
clearly in a position to provide such assistance. His establishment of knights
on land in Desnes loan can be linked to garrison service at Dumfries, 45
and there is some evidence to support the view that the region formed part
of an administrative unit, perhaps a sheriffdom, based on the new royal
castle. For this district, then, Uhtred and his successors would have been
liable to cain and other dues.
The second reference to cain from Galloway, that made in Roland's
judgement of 1187, has been taken as concrete proof of the rigorous
application of this tribute in the years immediately after the death of Gilbert
and the seizure of the lordship by the pro-Scottish son of Uhtred. The scale
of the payments has been taken as indicative that it was the higher nobility,
the supporters of Gilbert, who were being targeted for punishment rather
than the body of the populace. 46 The application, moreover, has been seen
as general, reaching all districts of the lordship. This, however, cannot be
the case. Although it has been recognised for a number of years that Roland
may have retained control of some of eastern Galloway following his
father's murder in 1174, 47 and that he speedily gained control of his
126
uncle's lands in 1185, it is clear from his submission to Henry II in 118648
that he was not the free agent which has normally been assumed. It can
be shown that from c.1176 until the Quitclaim of Canterbury in December
1189, the lordship lay under the direct and active overlordship of the king
of England, vassal status having been accepted by Gilbert as the price for
English assistance in escaping the wrath of William the Lion. 49 Roland
had attempted to avoid such a submission in 1186, but the chronicles cannot
disguise the fact that he submitted to superior military force and took oaths
of fealty and homage as binding as those performed by his uncle. In 1187,
therefore, Roland was in no position to acknowledge a general right to cain
from Galloway as a right of the Scottish crown. Such a grant, however,
is recorded and dated to c.May 1187. 50 What, then, were the circumstances
of the grant? Two possibilities present themselves. Firstly, Roland was
justiciar of 'Galloway'. 51 This is generally taken to mean all of southern
Scotland south and west of Clydesdale and Annandale. The 'Galloway'
of the 1187 judgement, therefore, could be this extended region, from which
the crown had long drawn cain. 52 The second possibility is that the record
gives only general details of an originally more specific judgement concerned with those regions which Roland had retained after his father's
murder. The most obvious of these is Desnes loan. Only after 1189 could
a more general grant be made.
Based on this later evidence, the lordship as ruled by Fergus appears as
a compact territory, focussing upon two main centres at Kirkcudbright and
Cruggleton. It was served by bishops whose see corresponded exactly with
the secular unit, an arrangement which further illustrates its independent
character. It appears, moreover, to have been free from obvious Scottish
influences until the acquisition of a portion of the old lordship of lower
Nithsdale, itself a subdivision of the kingdom of Strathclyde. This territorial
expansion probably occurred no earlier than 1165. It did, however, bring
tenurial complications, with the lords of Galloway recognising their status
as vassals of the king of Scots for this district, whilst at the same time
continuing to exclude them from Galloway proper.
In conclusion, therefore, it must be recognised that there are still major
unanswered questions concerning the origins of the lordship and the ruling
dynasty, but there are several factors which argue against significant Scottish
interferences until after ll60. There are no recorded antecedents for Fergus,
but his interests in the Irish Sea zone and association with those portions
of Galloway colonised by Scandinavians indicate a possible descent from
Norse-Celtic stock. No weight can be attached to claims for his
advancement by David I, and their association in the 1130s appears to stem
from coincidental political interests in the English succession dispute rather
than from any personal bond. Fergus certainly did not introduce Scottish
elements into Galloway, the influx of settlers commencing only with his
son's acquisition of Desnes loan. Fergus's political activities show
127
significant independence from superior control. His marriage to an
illegitimate daughter of Henry I put him on a par with Alexander I of
Scots, and gave him some social distinction over his supposed mentor,
David I, whose wife, although of royal stock, was a widow with family
already. Henry clearly regarded Fergus as a power worth wooing,
presumably on account of his resources of man-power. Finally, the evidence
of subjection to Scottish overlordship and the payment of tribute has been
called into question, with no proof for such burdens being available for
any periods other than the brief interludes when Galloway suffered military
conquest. In contrast, the Galloway of Fergus appears as a potent force,
ruled by an independent lord, wooed by foreign powers. As long as the
dynasty remained strong, Galloway remained free from Scottish control,
but every sign of weakness was exploited by the Canmore kings. It was
the failure of the male line of the House of Fergus that sealed the fate
of the lordship.
Appendix
Simplified family tree of the House of Fergus
Fergus + illegit. dau. of Henry I
Uhtred + Gunnilda
Gilbert + ?
I
Duncan
Roland + Helen de Morville
+
Alan
I
Thomas
(i)Helen
I
Affreca + Olaf of Man
I
Kings of Man
I
i ? de Lacy Thomas
ii Margaret
iii Rose de Lacy
+ Roger de Quincy
Earls of Carrick
(ii)Christina
(ii)Devorgilla
+ John
Balliol
I
I
John Balliol
Ferrars, Comyn and Zouche lines
I
Edward Balliol
Notes
I. e.g. Reid, R. C., Wigtownshire Charters, xi.
2. Anderson, A. 0., Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers (London, 1908),
100-101.
3. Mackenzie, W., The History of Galloway from the F.arliest Period to the Present
Time (Kirkcudbright, 1841), i, 167-8; Chalmers, G., Caledonia (new edition
Paisley, 1887), i, 366; M'Kerlie, P. E., The History of the Lands and Their
Owners in Galloway (2nd edition Paisley, 1906), i, 109-11; Huyshe, W., Grey
Galloway: Its Lords and Its Saints (Edinburgh, 1914), 107-8; Robertson, J. F.,
128
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The Story of Galloway (Castle Douglas, 1964), 41-3; Duncan, A. A. M.,
Scotland, The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975), 86.
M'Kerlie, Lands and Their Owners, i, 109-11.
Huyshe, Grey Galloway, 107.
Chron. Holyrood, 136-7.
Given-Wilson, C. and Curteis; A., The Royal Bastards of Medieval England
(London, 1984), 71; see also Robert de Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles of
Stephen etc., ed. Howlett, R., iv (1889), 229.
See for example, Glasgow Registrum, i, Nos. 3, 9, 10.
e.g. RRS, vi, No. 235.
Guillaume le Clerc, The Romance of Fergus, ed. Frescolin, W. (Philadelphia, 1983.
Legge, M. D., 'Sof'1e notes on the Roman de Fergus', TDGAS, 27 (1948-9),
163-72; Legge, M. D., 'The Father of Fergus of Galloway', SHR, 43 (1964), 86-7.
e.g. Legge, 'Father of Fergus of Galloway', 87.
The Romance of Fergus, 13-15; Legge, 'Notes on the Roman de Fergus', 163-5;
Greenber, J., 'Guillaume le Clerc and Alan of Galloway', Proceedings of the
Modern Language Association, 66 (1951), 524-33; Webster, K., 'Galloway and
the Romances', Modern Language Notes, 55 (1940), 363-6; Owen, D. D. R.,
'The craft of Guillaume le Clerc's Fergus', in The Craft of Fiction; Essays in
Medieval Poetics, ed. Arrathoon, L. (Rochester, Michigan, 1984), 47-81at48, 77.
Legge, 'Notes on the Roman de Fergus', 163, 166-7.
Schmolke-Hasselmann, B., 'Der arturische Versroman, et "Le Roman de
Fergus": technique narrative et intention politique', in An Arthurian Tapestry:
Essays in Memory of Lewis Thorpe, ed. Varty, K. (Glasgow, 1981), 342-53.
Owen, 'The craft of Guillaume le Clerc's Fergus'.
Greenberg, 'Guillaume le Clerc', 526-8, 532.
Legge, 'Notes on the Roman de Fergus', 163.
Agnew, A., A History of the Hereditary Sheriffs of Galloway (Edinburgh, 1864),
613; Kevan McDowall, J., Carrick Gal/ovidian (Ayr, 1947), 34; McGill, J. M.,
'A Genealogical Survey of the Ancient Lords of Galloway', Scottish Genealogist,
2 (1955), 3-6.
Chron. Man, 61.
Hill, P. H., Excavations at Bruce Street, Whithorn, 1984; Interim Report
(Edinburgh, 1985), 36-7; Hill, P.H., Whithorn 1. Excavations 1984-1986. Interim
Report (Whithorn, 1987), 6-9.
Duncan, Making of the Kingdom, 163.
See my contribution to the forthcoming revised Scottish Historical Atlas, on
the demesne estates of the lords of Galloway.
See e.g. RRS, i, Nos. I, 3, 5, 6.
e.g. Glasgow Registrum, i, No. I.
Shead, N. F., 'The Origins of the Medieval Diocese of Glasgow', SHR, 48 (1969),
220-5.
Skene, W. F., Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876), ii, 375-6.
Reid, R. C., 'The feudalisation of lower Nithsdale', TDGAS, 34 (1955-6), 102-110,
at 105-6.
Restrictions on space do not permit reproduction of the full argument in support
of this view. This is set out in full in my PhD thesis, The Lordship of Galloway,
c.IOOO-c.1250 (University of St Andrews, 1988).
129
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Glasgow Registrum, No. 9.
RRS, i, No. 131.
Anderson, Annals, 100-101.
e.g. CDS, i, Nos. 529, 533; CDS, v, No. 9; The Saga of Hacon, in Icelandic
Sagas, trans Dasent, G. W., iv (Rolls Series, 1894), 150.
Greeves, R., 'The Galloway Lands in Ulster', TDGAS, 36 (1957-8), 115-21;
MacNeill, T. E., Anglo-Norman Ulster: The History and Archaeology of an
Irish Barony, 1177-1400 (Edinburgh, 1980), 6, 14-15.
I am indebted to Professor A. A. M. Duncan for pointing out this possibility
to me in the course of the ASHS conference in St Andrews in October 1987.
Cumbria Record Office, Lowther Archive, D/Lons/L5/l/Sl.
APS, i, 378, xxiii.
e.g. Holyrood Liber, Nos. 23, 27, 49, 73; Holm Cu/tram Register, Nos. 120,
133, 140a; CDS, ii, No. 1606. These represented only a few of his grants to
ecclesiastical institutions. No charters of Lincluden Nunnery survive, but it
was founded by Uhtred and endowed with extensive lands in Desnes loan.
The inquest post-mortem into the lands of Elena la Zouche, grand-daughter
of Alan, and youngest daughter of Helen de Quincy, the senior Galloway heiress
(CDS, ii, No. 824), shows the concentration of her share of the Quincy third
of Galloway. More significantly, the Brevis Descriptio Regni Scotie of c.1296
described Kirkcudbright, the chief lordship centre, as belonging to William de
Ferrars, who was descended from Alan's eldest grand-daughter, Margaret,
countess of Derby (Miscellany of the Maitland Club, iv (Glasgow, 1847), pt i, 34).
See Craig, 'Pre-Norman sculpture'.
For the disappearance of Radulf see: Scots Peerage, vi, 286-7; Reid,
'Feudalisation of Nithsdale', 103.
Scott, J. G., 'An early sheriff of Dumfries?', TDGAS, 57 (1982), 90-91.
Reid, 'Feudalisation of lower Nithsdale', 109.
Walter Daniel, Life of Ai/red of Rievaulx, ed. Powicke, F. M. (Oxford, 1950), 45.
Scott, 'An early sheriff?'
Duncan, Making of the Kingdom, 185-6.
Ibid., 183-4.
Benedict of Peterborough, i, 348-9.
Ibid., i, 126.
74PS, i, 378, xxiii.
RRS, i, Nos. 309, 400, 406.
Duncan, Making of the Kingdom, 203-4.
130